Engagement Mechanics- Problems and Solutions

[drunetovich]

Do you guys realise that smart AI would neither run toward fighter or wizard? It would run away from the party, pulling every single mob on the map and then proceed to wipe the party with train of 40+ oponents charging in all at once. You don't want a smart AI in the game, it will make you cry bloody tears.

[Surface Reflection]

Nice joke. 

Hey doc, :bites and chews a delicious carrot:

Hows the life of helpful enthusiastic member been treating you?  Its so cool isnt it?

You wanna a real elegant simple solution for engagement? Well... just read on baby...

 

 

First, i dont expect ill be making a lot of posts here. But i noticed youre all stuck and nobody is seeing the tree from all that forest anymore.

And i do have a sort of investment in this game. A future one. Thats why im bothering to write this. You guys arent improving anything like this.

 

Mr Sawyer, devs.

 

When i first read about the game and engagement mechanic, for some reason i understood that only the "soldier" builds, our front line fighters, will have this ability. It makes perfect sense if one is actually trying to improve this class over its D&D progenitor. But to my amazement... i  lately discovered that you Devs gave engagement to every single thing in the game???

 

Why in the seven hells would you do that?

Thats the very reason why the gameplay is such a mess as it is now, from what i gather.

 

The solution is simple. Give engagement only to fighters. No other class should have it, nor any of the monsters - unless, UNLESS it is really, really, really necesary for some very, very, very, very, very, very good reason in some very specific case.

All the other classes already have their own "thing". Wizards have magic which is immensly diverse, rogues have all those attacks and ability to easily disengage, barbarians have their rushes and rages, whatever, druid have whatever they have, rangers have their ... pets, Monks have wounds, etc, etc, etc.

And then you gave them all the engagement ability too, on top of everything else?

 

:shakes head:

 

Give engagement only to fighters.

That removes all the problems mentioned in this thread and Sensukis threads about engagement. All the problems that stem from this single fact that you gave engagement to all creatures and classes ON TOP of what they already have, and in many cases completely nonsensically, such as giving it to animals and any creature at all.

That would make fighters have their own unique thing which effectively and very measurably makes them a much more valuable asset to have in a party.

 

 

It wont make the combat really great, because for that you would need to do another "thing" that PoE is missing so badly. But that is probably too much for Obsidian as a studio, especially at this stage. On that - in another thread.

[archangel979]

Do you guys realise that smart AI would neither run toward fighter or wizard? It would run away from the party, pulling every single mob on the map and then proceed to wipe the party with train of 40+ oponents charging in all at once. You don't want a smart AI in the game, it will make you cry bloody tears.

Depends on enemy. Most animals or bugs will not do that. Humanoids might do that if they are not surprised and if they have a chance to run away.

 

And it would be cool if smart enemy would actually do that. It is about time game designers start creating better dungeons where enemies organize vs intruders and then go back to patrol routine if players ran away from the dungeon.

 

If we cannot get that at least we should get AI that recognizes a fight that is going on 10 meters away through a open door.

 

Currently the game seems to work like when I played SWTOR where groups of enemies would stand around in open ground about 20m from each other and never react to your attacking one group. It was so stupid I soon lost the will to continue playing.

 

Just because IE games from 16 years ago could not program better AI it does not mean a game in 2014 should not try.

[Surface Reflection]

If engagement is an ability only fighters have, it would be easier to design a good Ai too, since the whole of the situation would be more reasonable and logical.

[MReed]

....

Give engagement only to fighters.

That removes all the problems mentioned in this thread and Sensukis threads about engagement. All the problems that stem from this single fact that you gave engagement to all creatures and classes ON TOP of what they already have, and in many cases completely nonsensically, such as giving it to animals and any creature at all.

That would make fighters have their own unique thing which effectively and very measurably makes them a much more valuable asset to have in a party.

 

 

This would indeed help -- because it turns the engagement metric from something that penalizes both the player and the AI equally into something that (say, 85% of the time) only penalizes the AI.  The remaining 15% of the time (when the player is fighting against humanoid fighters or monsters that the developers have classed as similar) the penalties that the player suffers will be no worse than they are today, and likely better (only some opponents will have engagement).

 

So, yeah, the less important engagement is to the play of the game, the better it is.

[Surface Reflection]

I think it would be appropriately important then. barbarians could have it too i guess, being front liners too, but of smaller capability then trained fighters. Similar as fighters already can engage up to three oponents while other classes can engage only one enemy - i believe...?

Rogues dont need it simply because they already have a big arsenal and they are not meant to hold the line but trip, strike, crit and avoid danger, not stand toe to toe with enemies.

 

Alternatively, all other classes and or creatures should have drastically lower chances to get engagement and or lower chance to score disegagement attack.

But i think clearly it separating from other creatures and classes would also work fine.

Then you wouldnt have situations where you get six disegagement attacks from any enemy if you went close to some group, or that other stuff that was mentioned.

 

 

As for kiting, that cannot be dampered by a mellee skill anyway.

Obviously.

 

 

 

-

I used a few a bit too rough expressions above, but that was not meant in that way. Cant edit now.

Not a native english speaker so a few slip by sometimes if im rushing or trying to cut it short.

 

Meant to say that it doesnt make much sense to give engagement capability to beetles or every poor bandit, or zombies or many, many other such creatures..

It felt from a start like something that requires skill and training - therefore very fit for a fighter.

And it doesnt exactly seem appropriate that wizards and druids have it too, for example, or any of the newer classes. Which all have their own special abilities.

Edited December 28, 2014 by Surface Reflection

[Lephys]

@Surface Reflection:

 

That's actually not a bad idea. The only-for-Fighters engagement.

 

Although, I'd say maybe just tie it to a Talent that Fighters happen to start with. That way, you CAN get it on other peeps, but you'd have to sacrifice something else to do so.

[Surface Reflection]

The problem with allowing other classes to have it is that then either all, or a lot of enemy creatures and opponents have it too. My suggestion is working both ways, for player characters and NPCs and creatures or animals.

I think it would work much better and be much clearer if it was an ability only fighters have. If it was clearly a specific ability.
with some slight optional variations as i wrote above.  

- i trust the devs would know bets which of the bestiary would benefit from sneakingly having some kind of engagement ability too. You can play with its inner mechanics and effects to create modified versions for special monsters and creatures, etc. Some could have enaggementability that increases their damage against selected oponent, ... all kinds of stuff.

 

As for kiting, engagement only helps with its first half, the disengagement itself. Moving away from an enemy.

But the rest of kiting is a ranged problem, not a melee one, therefore that other half of the problem can only be countered with various ranged skills and spells.

I already saw several such spells or abilities across the classes that would fit that bill perfectly. Barbarians rush, Rogue "switch places" skill, chanters have some spell that either slows down enemies or cripples something...  - unfortunately i only scanned it all fleetingly but, i believe there is already some ranged stuff already in the game thats very fitting for this business. A few new skills or spells, or extra modifications of ones already there could be made to strengthen such capabilities of all, player characters and enemies alike.

Then the Ai which wont be so hobbled by everyone engagement, could do some other things then just stand in place.

If then some nice movement and combat animations could be added...  it would all be much livelier.

[Luridis]

If I had to venture a guess as to why engagement is on everything it is because they don't want to see rogues running wanton through the backfield. Their first ability is Escape, 1-per-enc, which is specifically for that purpose. I suspect they want some degree of melee committal from rogues so they aren't simply able to run from target to target deploying blinds and cripples to everything in sight. Granted, rogues are supposed to threaten the backfield, but single-handedly devastating it, at will, is a little OP.

 

Another possibility is enemy design. Like we've seen in many games, various beasts and monsters have a "class" similar to those of the humanoid types. Obsidian may be building the engagement into the root classes, assuming they're doing it this way, and don't want or need to provide overrides to core mechanics in "is-a" types. So, if lions are rogues, they might inherit that mechanic from the root class so you simply can't turn and run from them without penalty.

 

We need to know how problematic non-warrior engagement is in the absence of goofy path behavior. Right now, attempting to move anyone once engaged, or even change targets is precarious at best. My priest gets wiped out all the time just trying to move to a new target as the path finding algorithm decides the best approach is to run around the back of the front line, resulting in AOO from everything that is run past. I mean, we can't actually see the no-fly zone. While it does show a path, that is not always the path the AI plots once the move is ordered. A target that looks one octal/square/what-have-you forward may be inaccessible due to an idle/combat animation placing a weapon shadow or something in that square periodically. So, the AI just paths it all the way around. So, the first thing that needs to be fixed is that, then we can see if backfield disengagement is overzealous.

 

A warning box with confirm could do it, or it could be much more intuitive with something like a yellow/red path warning and tool-tip icon. Provided it doesn't decide to take a different path after you've confirmed the action, and before it moves the actor.

[PrimeJunta]

Pathfinding could be better, for sure, but then again it doesn't attempt to avoid hostile spell effects either. You have to path manually around them. Avoiding AOO's is a similar thing.

 

It's not like it was any better in the IE games, either.

[Luridis]

Pathfinding could be better, for sure, but then again it doesn't attempt to avoid hostile spell effects either. You have to path manually around them. Avoiding AOO's is a similar thing.

 

It's not like it was any better in the IE games, either.

 

I thought that's what was triggering the AOO's... engagement. If not, then are they double-penalizing? AOO cause you moved and another for disengaging?

 

I'm gonna go back and move some guys around and see what the log is saying.

 

Still, you would think they could make them stop moving if a reactive trigger will fire based on what you input and the fly-by-wire the AI applied. D:OS doesn't do this stuff because it isn't real-time.

Edited January 1, 2015 by Luridis

[PrimeJunta]

I was careless, by AOO's I meant disengagement attacks.

[Surface Reflection]

Was that supposed to go into the Monk thread? ok,ok... just crash here in the couch. well sort that out tomorow.

[Nakia]

Too much Happy  New Year?

[archangel979]

Pathfinding could be better, for sure, but then again it doesn't attempt to avoid hostile spell effects either. You have to path manually around them. Avoiding AOO's is a similar thing.

 

It's not like it was any better in the IE games, either.

hostile spells can be easily seen by players, engagement areas cannot.

[PrimeJunta]

hostile spells can be easily seen by players, engagement areas cannot.

I don't find it difficult to e.g. circle around a melee group with my wizard, once it's settled down. Well, most of the time.

[Hormalakh]

If I had to venture a guess as to why engagement is on everything it is because they don't want to see rogues running wanton through the backfield. Their first ability is Escape, 1-per-enc, which is specifically for that purpose. I suspect they want some degree of melee committal from rogues so they aren't simply able to run from target to target deploying blinds and cripples to everything in sight. Granted, rogues are supposed to threaten the backfield, but single-handedly devastating it, at will, is a ...

You say this, not considering the crowd control abilities of the back line. A single hold person or knockdown would stop the rogue's threat. Engagement shouldn't be the only way someone stops movement.

 

I also like the fighters only engagement idea. Or front lines only, etc

[Luridis]

 

If I had to venture a guess as to why engagement is on everything it is because they don't want to see rogues running wanton through the backfield. Their first ability is Escape, 1-per-enc, which is specifically for that purpose. I suspect they want some degree of melee committal from rogues so they aren't simply able to run from target to target deploying blinds and cripples to everything in sight. Granted, rogues are supposed to threaten the backfield, but single-handedly devastating it, at will, is a ...

You say this, not considering the crowd control abilities of the back line. A single hold person or knockdown would stop the rogue's threat. Engagement shouldn't be the only way someone stops movement.

 

I also like the fighters only engagement idea. Or front lines only, etc

 

 

I see where you're coming from completely. But, I wasn't speaking from my own opinion of how it should or should not work. I was trying to consider what they might have in mind with the way it is currently implemented. My best guesses were: don't want things too easy for rogues or, on the technical side, inherited object mechanics. As to the last bit, it might be easier to see what I am talking about for the non-programmers if I link one of Unity 4's tutorials. (Just scrub to 2:45)

 

Edited January 1, 2015 by Luridis

[Luridis]

This is how I end up with those AOO fires, the fighter moves in for the lead attacker (Gold). The priest I send to engage the rear target on the obvious path (Blue). But, the AI decides to suddenly double back to come from the other side (Red). If this were a big line of enemies, I might not be able to micromanage a stop on the priest before she ends up whacked several times.

 

[Surface Reflection]

Oh, right. Didnt see the ignored posts back there.

Thats all taken in consideration already. I doubt that engagement is there just for any single thing, or class.

I think the game would still benefit from delegating it to fighters only state and that should unburden the Ai so it can maybe try some other moves too. Additionally, it seems a lot of classes already have several ranged skills or spells or abilities that could work very well in countering the ranged part of kiting process, useful for both PC and various enemies.

[Lord Wafflebum]

I'd actually be less thrilled to see that. I think that would set up parties to almost NEED fighters to control melee combat effectively. I'd much rather my front line be a paladin, monk, and priest. Everyone participating in engagement still allows me to protect my backline ranged peeps with relative ease.

[Surface Reflection]

I'd actually be less thrilled to see that. I think that would set up parties to almost NEED fighters to control melee combat effectively.

 

Fighters needed to control melee combat?

Perish the thought! Great Scott, What a dangerous idea! Why i Never! Quick, lets organize demonstrations against it! Call the peasants!

 

 

I'd much rather my front line be a paladin, monk, and priest.

 

 

youd much rather...

 

...and a priest Is it the priest of love precious? :snort: how about a bard? rofl... make a front line of chanters and druids too.

 

- but of course you wouldnt even think about playing with those classes skills and advantages, no.. better if everyone has fighter abilities and then we can complain how bad fighters are and not take them into parties, while it never even crossed your mind that also makes all enemies have the same schtick skill too so every fight is you standing in place, party all bunched up into enemy group and clicking icons on the hot bar.

 

 

Everyone participating in engagement still allows me to protect my backline ranged peeps with relative ease.

 

 

Well.. as long as your ease is ensured...

 

and safety of your backline...

Edited January 2, 2015 by Surface Reflection

[Lord Wafflebum]

Ugh, I don't understand why you make it so hard to have a conversation with you.

 

Why wouldn't it make sense for at least the paladin to also have engagement? Unless I'm missing something, the paladin does not have an ability to control combat flow otherwise. Why would it need to be only fighters other than to make them unique?

 

And yes, I realize that a priest isn't what you would normally consider front line, but I'm fond of the battle priest idea. Even if engagement were an ability option for some classes that say the fighter and paladin had for free I think that would still work well.

[Luridis]

Ugh, I don't understand why you make it so hard to have a conversation with you.

 

Because if you do not agree with him... that means that YOU must be stupid. Because he is infallible, and thus anyone who has the audacity to disagree with the clearly superior logic of the "Wolf God" must, in fact, be dumb.

 

Well, that's how his reasoning appears anyway. I don't think I've ever seen anything resembling humility in his postings.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Luridis

[Namutree]

Ugh, I don't understand why you make it so hard to have a conversation with you.

 

Why wouldn't it make sense for at least the paladin to also have engagement? Unless I'm missing something, the paladin does not have an ability to control combat flow otherwise. Why would it need to be only fighters other than to make them unique?

 

And yes, I realize that a priest isn't what you would normally consider front line, but I'm fond of the battle priest idea. Even if engagement were an ability option for some classes that say the fighter and paladin had for free I think that would still work well.

I think it would be fine as long as the fighters version was inherently superior. Perhaps more damage thanks to disengagement for the fighter; perhaps the fighter could have a defense bonus against the foe he's engaged to as well.